W7i7

This post is Part III of the series "Climate myths that MUST go". I urge the readers to read the previous posts first, to be able to make sense of this one. ← Myth #1: IPCC = COP ← Myth #2: Climate models are faulty because they are inequitable Myth #3: Climate system metrics = Socio-economic metrics I will admit, this one is trickier to summarize in one neat title line. So if anyone has a suggestion for the line above, they're certainly welcome. But first, let me try to explain what I mean by this strange line. I assume that the reader understands these two facts: (i) Carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas. Country of emissions do not matter to the climate system. (ii) Carbon dioxide has a long residence time in the atmosphere. After emission, it stays in the atmosphere for a very long time (decades-centuries). These two facts are incontrovertible and unchangeable, discovered by observations of nature. There is no point in "having an issue" or "not agreeing&q

This post is Part II of the post "Climate myths that MUST go". To read the previous post, go here: ← Myth #1: IPCC = COP Myth #2: Climate models are faulty because they are inequitable This myth was brought to my attention in the same Twitter conversation as before. The tweet-er wrote: " Also in AR6, the Scenarios assessed by IPCC especially the SSPs perpetuate inequalities going into the future. The IAMs are black boxes and the projections depict a screwed reality of the world by 2100. " They then led me to a podcast by the India Energy Hour , which further led me to an article on Carbon Copy. Before I go any further, I'd like to state that I consider these to be generally good sources for climate articles/information. Thus, to me, the fact that these myths are surfacing on otherwise good platforms is a sign that there is a serious lack of communication between climate scientists and workers in climate justice / policy / communication. The Carbon Copy article b

For several, several years now, experts have been trying to urge governments and citizens to take action or prepare for the climate crisis. Two things are simultaneously true: that there is some progress, and that there needs to be a lot more progress. In this three-part post, I'd like to identify three myths that throw confusion into the climate conversation, creating hurdles for constructive action. Myth #1: IPCC = COP The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a body of experts. Its reports and statements are devoid of political perspectives. One may argue that there is some political influence on what goes into the Summary of Policymakers. That is a valid point, but it is a matter of inclusion/omission of text into the Summary only. The full report is based only on technical findings and political influence can not change facts. COP, or Conference of Parties, on the other hand, is essentially a political body. Delegation from member states (or "Parties&quo

Earlier this week, Nikki Haley posted an incorrect tweet which led to a lot of outrage among Indians. Unfortunately, this outrage also reveals several myths the Indian climate conversation is rife with. In this post, I use the example of a specific video by the media outlet Firstpost to clarify some misconceptions, and to remind people of some critical climate truths that seem to be getting sidelined by our per capita pride. I request the reader to first watch the video, it is only 5 minutes long. === 00:50 " ..pollution has a time lag. What you emit today, affects us years later. Maybe 10 or 20 years down the line. This is why experts talk about historical pollution. " This is factually incorrect. Pollution -- and more specifically, carbon emissions -- have no such time lag . They affect us immediately . The actual reason why experts talk about historical pollution is the long residence time of carbon dioxide . Once emitted, carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for a